Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 331 posts

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#271

Post by rayiner »

antiterra wrote: post #189
rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a divisive issue because it represents fundamentally different world views. As an asian, the idea that the government can’t regulate abortion, which is prevalent among a large minority of Democrats these days, is remarkable. Even if abortion was a moral issue, and not about preserving human life, nothing precludes states from legislating morality. It’s illustrative to compare to Japan or Germany, which have “lib…

> But in both countries it’s still technically illegal. It would be nonsensical for activists in Japan to spend time advocating that abortion become technically legal without regard to practical situations where it could be performed. This is essentialist reasoning ascribing some kind of soul to the law, which feels out of character for you. I suppose you could argue that sodomy is 'technically illegal' in many state…

> It would be nonsensical for activists in Japan to spend time advocating that abortion become technically legal without regard to practical situations where it could be performed. This is essentialist reasoning ascribing some kind of soul to the law, which feels out of character for you.

I'm simply pointing out the difference between the government tolerating certain conduct, and the government lacking the power to prohibit that conduct. Abortion in Japan and Germany are examples of the former--legalization happened without denying the power of the government to have made it illegal in the first place.

Roe (and Lawrence), by contrast, not only legalized certain conduct, but declared that the government never had the power to make it illegal in the first place. That's actually quite radical compared to how most advanced countries view the issue.

> The pro-choice movement doesn't have the same fervor at this point

I don't think that's accurate. For a significant chunk of the pro-choice movement, it's a moral issue as much as it is for dedicated pro-lifers. They believe that the purpose of life is fulfilling one's individual hopes and dreams in the same way pro-lifers believe that the purpose of life is to be fruitful and multiply. For dedicated pro-choicers, the possibility of derailing individual aspirations is so unthinkable that it justifies ending a nascent human life. For dedicated pro-lifers, reproduction is such a clear mandate that it justifies derailing individual ambitions and aspirations. That's the fundamental conflict in world view that I'm talking about.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#272

Post by rimunroe »

Retric wrote: post #167
jonhohle wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfertilized eggs are not human and have no capacity to become human. Should “lesser” humans have fewer rights than “full” humans? I think we’ve already been through that a few times in history and it has always turned out to be the wrong choice.

They don’t need the capacity to become human they are human. How else would you describe these unfertilized eggs except as living organisms, species human? Unless you want to suggest your ancestors are egg, human, egg, human, egg, human … If you want to give all humans the same rights then they should clearly qualify. Of course giving an egg, fetus, or baby the right to vote in an election is going to run into some p…

I'm not conceding any other part of whatever argument you're making, but saying that unfertilized eggs are individual humans is completely ludicrous. They aren't separate organisms. They might eventually be used to create one, but it's not likely. This is like arguing that every skin cell is an individual human just because you could theoretically extract DNA from it and make a clone.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#273

Post by ceejayoz »

snikeris wrote: post #135
ceejayoz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Late term abortions are almost all wanted babies where something has gone horribly wrong for the baby, the mother, or both. There are also vanishingly few of them.

These wouldn't be voluntary abortions, right? We were discussing voluntary abortions.

Voluntary late-term abortion are basically unicorns, and worth the same level of public policy attention.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#274

Post by jonhohle »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #183
jonhohle wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of birthed people that are in that state. Mostly infants, but many with developmental disabilities or other conditions. Eugenics had the same idea. Do you want To be the arbiter of the minimal set of bodily functions required to be human? What if you end up in a state with one less than the value chosen, should someone else be able to decide whether you live or die?

There is no "one less than the value chosen" in this case - the embryo is 100% reliant on the mother for every single possible life function - circulation, respiration, digestion, homeostasis, everything. The only "babies" that are "born" in that state are early miscarriages. This is the slippery slope fallacy writ large, in the same way as comparing a minority to an embryo was.

You think that a 20 week old child has no chance of living outside a womb? The current earliest premie is 21 weeks. It will only go lower with better technology. The slope slips to its logical conclusion: conception.

Here’s a thought exercise: take whatever you would consider a viable human and rewind to one developed cell earlier. Is that a human? Repeat until you can guarantee it is not a human. How far do you have to go until that is true for all instances of all fetuses? I came to the conclusion that an embryo, which can live and grow outside of a womb is the earliest logical point to consider the organism a human and make subsequent opinions accordingly.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#275

Post by malfist »

Grustaf wrote: post #252
malfist wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is, only things that are born matter if you kill them? In that case, you shouldn't have an issue with a fetus being aborted. Also, that's now how potatoes work. You harvest them after the plant has died. At least for potatoes used for french fries.

> So what you're saying is, only things that are born matter if you kill them? No, I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying your analogies are idiotic, since acorns don't correspond to foetuses - almost no acorns end up as trees. > Also, that's now how potatoes work. You harvest them after the plant has died. It was your analogy, not mine. If potatoes are only harvested when dead, how could eating them possibly be murd…

So you're saying that if more pregnancies ended in miscarriage abortion would be moral?

What's the limit here? 40%? 60% 80%? Why does the number or miscarriages matter at all?

If your curious ~60% of embryos do not make it to a live birth, and that's excluding abortions. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#276

Post by Grustaf »

falcolas wrote: post #261
Grustaf wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn't a partisan issue It was you that said "our current government". I would have thought the Democratic party was in favour of a working welfare system, at least for small children. You adoption numbers are not relevant, we are not talking about children, we are talking about newborns. Since there are apparently 2 million American couples wanting to adopt right now, and only 18000 being adopted each year, I'…

Here I thought we were talking about protecting lives in the world as it is. Not just babies in an idealized world that doesn't reflect the US' current or projected state. Anyways. Have a great day.

That's what I am discussing. And I'm saying that literally millions of people are waiting to adopt. Pretty sure most of them would be more than happy to pay $5k for the birth. If not, adoption agencies should be obliged to cover it.

I'm sure you don't think that it's acceptable that women would kill their unborn children because they can't afford the cost of birth?

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#277

Post by taylodl »

Grustaf wrote: post #164
kraf wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not likely... There's a good chance she's alone with the kids and has to take on multiple jobs. Don't you think she will have sacrificed a lot of her own life for unwanted kids? Do you know somebody who's happy with a situation like this? I'm sure they exist but if you'll ask me for odds in a tough country like the USA I'll tell you they're bad.

I don't know the answer, it's an honest question. Obviously having children changes your life completely, it is a huge burden and you have to "sacrifice" a lot. But almost nobody regrets it. Probably because we are hardwired to have children. The joy outweighs any sacrifices. I don't know anyone that wishes they hadn't let their children be born, no matter how harsh their circumstances.

But almost nobody regrets it.

Yeah, no.

Gen X-er here - born before Roe v Wade. My own mother told me she'd have aborted me had it been legal. She felt trapped into getting married to someone she ultimately didn't love. I witnessed several domestic violence issues growing up. The "good news" is I wasn't alone - I knew other kids that had similar home issues. It was way more widespread than people let on.

This whole narrative of I had children unexpectedly at 18 and it was a miracle that changed my life - yeah it happens, but it's the rare case. That's not typically how that ball rolls.

The reality is it really sucks to be an unwanted child. Let them live, my ass. It's more like let them suffer.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#278

Post by finfinfin »

hellojesus wrote: post #250
triceratops wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> organ harvesting from newborns wat

Page 501 documents the research request and contact for human fetal tissue. https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-hhs-humanized-m... Also some famous undercover videos: https://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-f...

What’s the context? What is the research of? Is consent required / has it been received? Is this a common practice? Is it common to sell non-fetal tissue for research purposes? Etc etc

Linking to a cryptic 575 page long PDF file is too conspiratorial to take seriously.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#279

Post by Grustaf »

malfist wrote: post #275
Grustaf wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what you're saying is, only things that are born matter if you kill them? No, I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying your analogies are idiotic, since acorns don't correspond to foetuses - almost no acorns end up as trees. > Also, that's now how potatoes work. You harvest them after the plant has died. It was your analogy, not mine. If potatoes are only harvested when dead, how could eating them possibly be murd…

So you're saying that if more pregnancies ended in miscarriage abortion would be moral? What's the limit here? 40%? 60% 80%? Why does the number or miscarriages matter at all? If your curious ~60% of embryos do not make it to a live birth, and that's excluding abortions. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/

> So you're saying that if more pregnancies ended in miscarriage abortion would be moral?

Not saying that at all. Just like last time, we are still just discussing how bad your analogies were.

> If your curious ~60% of embryos do not make it to a live birth,

I'm well aware of this, and although most of this is accounted for very early on, it's still pretty high. And of course in many cases the embryos were not viable.

> Why does the number or miscarriages matter at all?

I haven't discussed this, it was you that brought it up. With acorns, only 1 out of 10000 becomes a tree, so killing an acorn is substantially different from cutting down a tree. Not even taking into account that these are different forms, an acorn is not a small tree.

You speak as if the issue was black and white, clearly it isn't. Even you think that killing an 8 month old foetus, which has a heartbeat, can dream and even recognises its father's voice, is fundamentally different from taking a morning after pill and stopping a 4 cell cluster from turning into a human.

From a religious point of view, it's entirely reasonable to believe that anything after conception is sacred, since it's the beginning of a specific human being, but even progressive atheists realise that an 8 month foetus most definitely is a complete human.

Re: Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

#280

Post by jonhohle »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #191
jonhohle wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that situation medical professionals are doing everything they can to keep that person alive. If there is another option besides the one donor found it will be used. Fetuses aren’t granted the right to “pursue happiness”. Abortion doesn’t absolve a mother of obligations while giving the child a chance to part ways amicably. As the potential organ donor you cannot choose to actively terminate the life of the recipi…

Those have no bearing on the autonomy of the donor. The ethicalness of declining to donate isn't contingent on support of medical professionals nor the concept of active or passive action. What does supervene on the ethicalness of the action is autonomy. Bodily autonomy gives a donor the right to back away at the last minute, not the concept of passive action or medical support. I'm not disagreeing that those exist,…

Parents have an obligation to the care and development of their children. There are plenty of parents who are found guilty of negligence. That is more appropriate than the donor concept.
Post reply on HN